Torman Maxt

^ It didn't kill it off then, but it did maim it.

As for Olav's post: I didn't even manage to find VM's review of The Problem of Pain on Progressor (or any Progressor review of that album), though a review of it there was mentioned in the interview.  Just saw his reviews of earlier Torman Maxt albums. Most of the reviews I've read have been middling to very good at other sites, but I see very limited reviews of the album at most sites (just one review which makes it less trustworthy to me -- especially as I am unfamiliar with moist of those reviewers and know nothing of their music credentials/ educational background).  It would be useful to check out other sites where it's been reviewed by a number of people.  As for pros and semi-pros reviews, I'd like to see how, and if, it was reviewed in any scholarly music journals. I believe that most here simply did not like the music, or think it good. I don't really dislike it; just find it very boring/ unadventurous and feel it lacks sufficient contrast etc. That you think it's 4 stars is fine, though your review doesn't lead me to think that it is
" Excellent addition to any prog rock music collection" material. What is, though? I have a problem with the rating criteria, and I know many ignore it or interpret it their own way. I treat 4 stars as what I consider really "essential" to my collection, and what I find the best of those essential ones I think of as sublime masterpieces.

Interesting that it's as highly rated at progfreak as it is (due to the PA people overlap -- PA collabs commonly use that site -- course one was you and you've rated it at a few places): http://progfreak.com/Torman-Maxt-The-Problem-of-Pain-Part-1,_dbe,albums,_auto_6691348.xhtml

Only a few rated it there, but is has a high rating:

5 months ago, rushfan4 7.5 Prog Hard Rock/Metal

3 years ago, Windhawk 8.2 Prog Rock/Metal

What are some sites, other than progarchives and rateyourmusic, where it's been reviewed by at least a few people? How many sites did you find with positive reviews where it was reviewed by multiple people (and are unique reviews -- not just copy/ paste jobs from places they posted them before, as I've seen a fair amount of repetition of reviews at various sites)?


Edited by Logan - October 17 2010 at 19:32

Good on him, I disagree with most of his views, but it takes balls to speak out like that.

No, we've had several featured bands of the month since then and nobody has cared. We even got Mono to push their new DVD for a month, oddly enough. As far as I can tell, the frequent PA visitor has very little engagement with the front page, which is the problem moreso.

I must say that, for this album, my opinion about it was not a bit influecenced by its actual grade.

So you are the only one free from corrupting influences while we plebs wallow in the dirt? People definitely bothered to pile on because of the star thing, but that's not the same thing as hating it because other people do. 

Rocktopus wrote: I don't want to fight or anything, but just challenge this view. I think its a strange "rule" to apply that religion is not for rock stages. How is a concept album retelling the story of Job different from Aphrodite's Child 666, based on Saint John’s Revelation? If it works, as with 666 and atleast for me; Woven Hand, Albert Ayler or Allah-praising jazz artists such as Pharoah Sanders mm..., I much rather have a spiritual approach than a bunch of love songs.

As I said hundred times, I listen all day to music composed in part to praise god, music of the highest caliber ever. (see my first image in my signature). I actually look like a religious madman for the amount of versions and recordings of his religious works. Religion is not the issue here. 

CCVP wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Back for more? Good, I love a masochist. CCVP wrote: EDIT: This situation is what probably ended killed the "featured band of the month" thing, if you stop to think about it for one second. No, we've had several featured bands of the month since then and nobody has cared. We even got Mono to push their new DVD for a month, oddly enough. As far as I can tell, the frequent PA visitor has very little engagement with the front page, which is the problem moreso.   You know, a deadly cancer doesn't instantly kill somebody, in spite of the fact that one will sooner or later die from it. This was the cancer of the featured band. Besides, this website has a much higher number of dayly hits than we have members, so even if every single collab, reviewer and habitual users of the site, much like yourself, don't go though the front page, a myriad of people still do, so that is obviously not the problem.   Henry Plainview wrote: CCVP wrote: I must say that, for this album, my opinion about it was not a bit influecenced by its actual grade. So you are the only one free from corrupting influences while we plebs wallow in the dirt? People definitely bothered to pile on because of the star thing, but that's not the same thing as hating it because other people do.    Like it or not, other opinions do matter when you pick up something. If that was not so, we would not have to classify and rate everything we do, discover or know in order to systematize and ease the job of constructing an opinion and knowlege about it. That goes for science, philosophy and possibly every aspect of our lives. So, yes, if a lot of people hate something, it will be only natural that other people with little knowlege of such thing will have a stronger tendency NOT to like it. Same thing if many people like something.    That is a fact, proven by scientific research over the course of decades. That is how we as human beings behave, wether you like (or care to understand) or not. I was just trying to say that I went beyond that simple inertia and gave a legitimate try to the band. Their music is not a groundbraking masterpiece, but it is far from being as bad as it is portraited here.

Rocktopus wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: This may sound contradictory, coming from the person who participates in religious threads defending EVERY religion, but I believe that when music is used to promote a determined religion or political party, it ceases to be quality music and turns into a jingle. More than contradictory I think it sounds silly and not really thought through. Religion and art has been thightly connected for hundreds and even thousands of years. Bach's St. Matthews Passion just a jingle? Any Stabat Mater a jingle?  How about Pharoah Sanders The Creator Has A Master Plan? And the music of Area, Art Bears, Henry Cow & Matching Mole are nothing but communist jingles?

Rocktopus wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: This may sound contradictory, coming from the person who participates in religious threads defending EVERY religion, but I believe that when music is used to promote a determined religion or political party, it ceases to be quality music and turns into a jingle. More than contradictory I think it sounds silly and not really thought through. Religion and art has been thightly connected for hundreds and even thousands of years. Bach's St. Matthews Passion just a jingle? Any Stabat Mater a jingle?  How about Pharoah Sanders The Creator Has A Master Plan? And the music of Area, Art Bears, Henry Cow & Matching Mole are nothing but communist jingles?

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - October 18 2010 at 12:01

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Rocktopus wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: This may sound contradictory, coming from the person who participates in religious threads defending EVERY religion, but I believe that when music is used to promote a determined religion or political party, it ceases to be quality music and turns into a jingle. More than contradictory I think it sounds silly and not really thought through. Religion and art has been thightly connected for hundreds and even thousands of years. Bach's St. Matthews Passion just a jingle? Any Stabat Mater a jingle?  How about Pharoah Sanders The Creator Has A Master Plan? And the music of Area, Art Bears, Henry Cow & Matching Mole are nothing but communist jingles? Bach made music to praise God, but not full of EXPRESS messages to guide people to a determined believe in something determinate. Now, for the T, you consider insulting to call EXPRESS MESSAGES IN FAVOUR OFF  DETERMINED RELIGION a jingle, but that's mostly what it is Jingle: a short simple tune, often with words, which is easy to remember and is used to advertise a product on the radio or television  Despite not being short is a tune WITH WORDS used to ADVERTISE A PRODUCT CALLED RELIGION....ERGO IT'S A JINGLE The main reason for creating music, should be art, the main reason to create a jingle is to sell people a product...You can reach your conclusions easily, I heard lots of Christian musicians saying their main interest is to share the message of God...This is a jingle, no matter if I agree with the message. Praising God with the music as Bach did, is perfect, but ADVERTISING a product called Christianity and trying to sell it to people using artistic music is not. Watch the 700 CLUB or EWTN (Catholic as me), both programs are full of so called artists who's main interest is to sell this product named Christianity through popular music, leaving art behind. I can't be offending anybody, because I would be offending what my religion does, but I have my GOD GIVEN RIGHT to disagree with this practice. Iván

I think the debate is less about religion than questioning the integrity of some very good reviewers, which is what you are doing when you ascribe motive and suggest they are not rating the music as they truly believe it to be.  Perhaps this occured somewhere, but I find it hard to believe all 12-14 Collabs in question, some who were not even present during the controversy, have intentionally downrated several stars to punish this band.  Guys like Umur and Jeff especially, seem very objective to me and unlikely to be "colored" by a desire to bash.